In Depth

The Center For Inquiry, a non-profit that promotes a secular society based on science and reason, plans to appeal a federal
court’s ruling that Indiana’s Solemnization Statute is constitutional.

CFI filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, seeking permanent injunctive
relief to stop the clerk and the prosecutor from enforcing the Solemnization Statute, Indiana Code 31-11-6-1.

“Quite frankly, I think we were optimistic about how this particular case was going to turn out,” said Paul Fidalgo,
spokesman for CFI. “We were surprised by the court’s ruling. We felt our case was extremely strong and explained
very clearly to the court the institutional privilege of religion in the law as it stands.”

John Kiel and Michelle Landrum wanted to be married in Indianapolis by Reba Boyd Wooden, executive director of CFI-Indiana
and a secular celebrant. Indiana requires marriages be solemnized and grants the authority to solemnize to religious and certain
government officials. It does not recognize secular celebrants.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Indiana Solemnization Statue, Indiana Code 31-11-6-1,
and to secure a judicial declaration that the Solemnization Statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution. They contend the statute creates a preference for religion over non-religion.

The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the Solemnization Statute does not comport with the Equal Protection Clause
of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The court rejected those arguments, finding the statute does not significantly impede a couple from getting married. Also,
it agreed with the defendants’ assertion that since marriage has religious roots, it is both natural and logical that
when the state government regulates entry into marriage, it accommodates those deep religious traditions.

Writing for the court, Judge Sarah Evans Barker stated, “In addition, Plaintiffs’ proffered evidence and statement
at oral arguments give us no pause regarding the Solemnization Statute’s validity. We therefore will not disturb the
presumption that this statute is a valid, nondiscriminatory exercise of the State’s power. Defendants have
supplied adequate rational justifications for the statute: accommodating various faith traditions, maintaining official record-keeping
systems, and ensuring that marriage ceremonies are meaningful, inter alia.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Conversations

2 Comments

No bruce the whole point of the first amendment was to prohibit the establishment of a state church by the federal government
by Congress. Not to prohibit anything by the states apparently from its literal text. not that this have ever stopped the
courts from using it however they pleased. here the courts just let the legislature do what they are there for-- to Legislate.
Democracy and all that jive!

Providing specific privilege to religious institutions that cannot be obtained by secular organizations or non-theistic citizens
is, by definition, unconstitutional. That is the whole point of the establishment clause and the first amendment. While the
authority of the constitution in this country seems to be eroding due to opportunism by our politicians and apathy by the
populace, it does not change the content of the constitution nor the legal precedent.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.